The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Interpretation by Physicians of Clinical Laboratory Results
Abstract
AS both the number and cost of clinical laboratory tests continue to increase at an accelerating rate,1 physicians are faced with the task of comprehending and acting on a rising flood tide of information. We conducted a small survey to obtain some idea of how physicians do, in fact, interpret a laboratory result.MethodsWe asked 20 house officers, 20 fourth-year medical students and 20 attending physicians, selected in 67 consecutive hallway encounters at four Harvard Medical School teaching hospitals, the following question: "If a test to detect a disease whose prevalence is 1/1000 has a false positive rate of . . .
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Predictive Value of a Single Diagnostic Test in Unselected Populations
Vecchio, T. J. (1966) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm196605262742104 · Cited by 941
A Probability Graph Describing the Predictive Value of a Highly Sensitive Diagnostic Test
Katz, M. A. (1974) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm197411212912106 · Cited by 43
Cited by
Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises
Nickerson, R. S. (1998) · Review of General Psychology · doi:10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175 · Cited by 7,267
Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1983) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.90.4.293 · Cited by 3,991
Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment.
Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2002) · Heuristics and Biases · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511808098.004 · Cited by 3,476
Analysis of probability as an aid in the clinical diagnosis of coronary artery disease.
Diamond, G. A., & Forrester, J. S. (1979) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm197906143002402 · Cited by 2,664
Slovic, P., Finucane, M., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2002) · Heuristics and Biases · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511808098.025 · Cited by 2,349
Metadata
- Authors
- Casscells, W., Schoenberger, A., & Graboys, T. B.
- Venue
- New England Journal of Medicine
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- Published
- 1978-11-02
- Volume
- 299
- Issue
- 18
- Pages
- 999-1001
- ISSN
- 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
- 1533-4406
- OpenAlex
- W1963486724
- Cited by
- 755
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 15.19
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Interpretation by Physicians of Clinical Laboratory Results. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejm197811022991808
- The paper
- Casscells, W., Schoenberger, A., & Graboys, T. B. (1978). Interpretation by Physicians of Clinical Laboratory Results. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm197811022991808
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
